Pressing Charges

“I hope they get put into, I hope these guys get thrown into jail. They’ll never do it again. It’ll destroy their record. They’ll have to explain to mom and dad why they have a police record, and why they can’t get a job. And you know what? I’m going to start pressing charges against these people. And then we won’t have a problem.

“And I don’t want to do that. I don’t want to ruin somebody’s life. They’re probably good kids, you know. They’re probably good kids. I don’t what to ruin people’s lives. But the only way we’re going to stop this craziness is if we press charges. Because then their lives are going to be ruined. They’re going to know their lives are going to be ruined. So I’ll just tell you folks from now on, if you do anything, we’re pressing charges, okay?”

Trump is really good at playing the crowd. He's talking the right way now -- not 'Hey, I'll pay your legal fees if you beat up a protester.' American Presidents don't invite brown shirts to engage in violence against protesters. They use official police forces.

If he can make that shift, he will be poised to run as the law-and-order candidate in the fall. It will be difficult for Clinton or Sanders to take the same tone, because the BLM movement has their number. They can't afford to stand up to this kind of anti-free-speech, lawless disruption.

No problem. I did watch the whole Wichita speech trying to find the part you were talking about, and it never came up. :)

But it was worth watching -- Trump is really good at this. It's good to be reminded of why he is succeeding. He gives a fantastic rally-the-troops address that shows he's solidly in touch with the way Americans see themselves and the state of the nation. That's why he's winning in a walk in spite of all the problems he causes himself.

But this, like much of what he says, is meaningless. They (he or his campaign) can't press charges, that's up to the police, and even if they do, the DA will plea them down to something meaningless or the judge will dismiss with a 'warning'. These people never get anything of significance on their records. They even train to know where the lines are so they can do as much as possible without crossing lines that would allow more serious legal troubles to come their way. The irony of course, is that they argue that it's their First Amendment rights that should prevent them from being charged with anything more serious, if at all.

I don't think that's right. I'm not a lawyer, though we have some here who can help us decide the question. I do think that -- for example -- he could press trespassing charges insofar as he has rented a hall for a particular purpose they are disrupting. It's his election to ask for the charges to be enforced that starts the legal process, as I understand it.

For example, it's my understanding that domestic violence charges used to be this way, but that the decision to press charges or not now belongs to the DA because battered wives often elected not to press charges later. So now the state alone decides if the charges will be brought to court or not. But in cases like trespass, if you don't press the matter the state doesn't take action.

Not a lawyer either, so I don't know. I know you're right that often the prosecutor considers the willingness of the victim to want to press charges, but I'm not sure that's required or determinative. Umm, lawyers of the hall, anyone able to clarify this?

At any rate, history tells us that charges pressed or not, they never really get hit with anything of significance, and just keep coming back for more. Arrests are like badges of honor for these professional 'protesters'.